ME 375

VIBRATIONS LAB
REPORT 3

November 11, 2010

Section 1
Group 1

Submitted by:
Jake Tufano

Submitted to:
Tom Smith

Lab Partners:
Bill Campbell
John Maloney
1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report will discuss the deformation of a metal beam when displaced by a force. The
mode shapes and natural frequencies are analyzed both analytically and experimentally.
The analytical method makes use of Solidworks simulation where an FEA analysis is
performed on the model beam. The experimental tests make use of a metal plate fixed
between two blocks of wood. An accelerometer is placed on the beam and the resultant
natural frequencies were extracted from SignalCalc plots. These experiments are useful to
see the effects that a force will have on a beam, given different material and physical
constraints. It then becomes clear which of the modes of vibration, vertical bending,
lateral bending, torsion and stretching, are the dominant ones in this test. These
experiments compare the validity of the analytical versus the experimental situation and
gives insight into the way real world structures may respond to the complex vibrations
found in nature.
2.0 RESULTS

2.1 FEA Modal Analysis

Finite element analysis is a method of modeling a structure by “breaking” it into small

sections that are able to respond independently of one another. This enables the model to
react in a way consistent with a real apparatus. Ina way the beam, in this case can be
depicted as millions of small spring/mass (blocks) systems connected, all having an effect
on one another. The program then assembles these springs and masses into a matrix and
solves the Eigen value problem which corresponds to the natural frequencies exhibited by
the beam. Naturally, the greater the number of blocks created, the better the accuracy of
the simulation. This can be controlled when using the mesh feature in Solidworks. The
ability of Solidworks to solve large matrices in a short amount of time makes this
program invaluable when simulating vibrational responses. When different frequencies
are imposed on the model, Solidworks is able to separate the vibrations into the
respective vibrational modes. The results from the FEA analysis can be found in
appendix 1.

2.2 Model Development

The method by which the beam was analyzed analytically makes use of the program
Solidworks, using the dimensions of the beam that will be experimentally tested. The
beam to be modeled was available for measurement and was found to be 36” long, 4”
wide and 1/16” thick. The system is drawn in the program and given the specified
material properties so it will respond in a way consistent with the actual material. This is
only an approximation because real world materials will be subject to corrosion, heat and
other environmental changes. A foot of the beam is then to be secured as it would be if it
were rigidly attached to a support. A plane was placed 12” in from the left side and the
beam was split. The 12” section was then selected to be elastically supported on the top
and bottom faces. The stiffness can then be adjusted, to start a value of 7 (N/m)/m2 was
selected. This value was then varied, which is discussed in the next section.

2.3 Purpose of Frequency vs. Constraint Stiffness Test

In this experiment the importance of the fixture stiffness becomes clear. The stiffness of
the restraining fixture has a strong correlation to the frequencies at which the beam
vibrates as is seen on the chart on the week 9 data sheet. Depending on the stiffness, a
different mode of vibration may occur for each frequency, i.e. vertical bending, lateral
bending, torsional and stretching. Several different magnitudes of stiffness (from 1e5
(N/m)/m2 to 1e9 (N/m)/m2) were analyzed and the corresponding frequency and modes
are also recorded on the data sheet. A plot of these values is shown in the following
section. These plots were then used in the experimental part where the stiffness had to be
estimated from the natural frequency value.
 2.4 Plots of Frequency vs. Constrained Stiffness
Vertical Bending 1 vs K
3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1
Natural Frequencies

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5
5 6 7 8 9
10 10 10 10 10
Stifness

Figure1: This plot shows the correlation of the first mode of vertical bending vs. fixture stiffness. As can
be seen, with a higher stiffness the system requires a higher frequency to vibrate. The horizontal portion of
the graph is caused by relatively close natural frequencies for the first two stiffness values.

Vertical Bending 2 vs K
22

20

18
Natural Frequencies

16

14

12

10
5 6 7 8 9
10 10 10 10 10
Stifness

Figure 2: This graph shows the correlation between fixture stiffness and the second mode of vertical
bending experienced by the beam. Once again, with increased stiffness there is a higher value of frequency.
Comparing with the graph of vertical bending 1 above, it can be observed that vertical bending 2 occures at
higher natural frequencies.
 2.5 Experimental Modal Analysis

This portion of the experiment analyzes the frequency of an actual steel beam when
vibrated manually. A steel beam of the same dimensions described above was set
between two wooden blocks acting as the fixture. This apparatus acts as a linear time
invariant system, meaning the response is independent of the time at which the impulse is
supplied. This then outputs an input response function through SignalCalc and shows the
way the system reacts to the impulse. An accelerometer was then placed on the left edge
of the beam at the furthest point from the fixture. It was place on the edge so that it was
able to record the torsional movement of the beam as well as the vertical movement. The
accelerometer was then attached to SignalCalc so the vibrations could be read. The beam
was then struck with a load cell integrated hammer than was also connected to SignalCalc
that was able to measure the force of impact. SignalCalc was then able to measure the
resulting vibration and the corresponding transfer function. The peaks in the transfer
function then correspond to the natural frequencies of the vibration. The transfer function
was calculated multiple times and averaged in order to reduce the noise found in the
vibration. A coherence function is then used to depict the consistency of the tests.

2.6 Procedure for Parameter Setting

In order to find a starting point from which to measure T- span, F- span, and the trigger
value, a test run had to be performed. The T- span was set to a rather large value to start
to make sure the entire vibration would be recorded. It was then found that a larger value
was necessary and the T- span was then set to 10.24. A similar procedure was then
followed for estimating the F- span. This value needed to satisfy the Nyquist Criterion,
and based on the test run, a value of 312.5 was decided upon. To find the trigger value,
which starts recording data after the hammer strikes the beam it was again necessary to
reference the test run. After running the test the trigger was set to the minimum voltage
experienced, which was 2 mV.

2.7 Procedure to Estimate Fixture Stiffness

Since the fixture in the experimental case was simply two blocks of wood set on the
table, it was necessary to estimate its stiffness. The frequency of vibration was known for
the three vertical modes experienced. These values were used to find the associated
stiffness from the graphs obtained from the FEA. The three values were then averaged
and a value 10^7.67(N/m)/m^2 was found.
 3.1 Advantages and Limitations of FEA

FEA is useful when trying to get a general idea of how something will react under ideal
conditions. It is also very easy to adjust the type of metal, fixture and force that the beam
experiences. It also gives a very accurate representation of what the movement will be
under these specific conditions. FEA is also able to be used on models that may be too
large or costly to experimentally test. Unfortunately in a real world setting, ideal
conditions are never present and this could potentially lead to errors in design and
calculations.

3.2 Advantages and Limitations of Experimental Analysis

Experimental analysis is useful when trying to model something as close to real world
conditions as possible. Although the beam may not have been under the same conditions
as it would be when in use, the discrepancies give a good idea as to what may affect the
performance of something in real life. In this case it is also harder to model the response
of a material that may not be readily available. And there may be factors present in the
testing environment that would not be in the actual environment where the object will be
used. Doing many experimental runs can also be too time consuming and costly to be
practical in some applications.

3.3 Experimental and FEA results and Discrepancies

After doing both experiments, it was clear that there were some differences associated
with each method, but for the most part the resultant frequencies were close for both
cases. The first four modes of vibrations of the beam were very close but the fifth mode
produced a very high value in the FEA analysis that was inconstant with the other values.
Only the vertical movement was analyzed in depth and it was found that, although close,
the experimental values tended to be higher. These discrepancies can be due to the
modeling assumptions made and the inconsistent nature of the experimental apparatus.
For the experimental case, the fixture stiffness was an average of three values; this is
because the wood block is incapable of restricting the motion of the beam in all
directions. Secondly the FEA beam was modeled as an ideal apparatus, while the
experimental beam was subjected to rust, holes down the length and was pre-bent from
previous use. And lastly there was noise associated with the experimental case. In the
FEA analysis, there were no considerations taken for vibrations in the room. This leads to
smaller vibrations adding to the frequency in the experimental case.
 Appendix 1: FEA Results
1:

2:

3:

4:

5: